Eric Whist

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability more than one year after his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his recovery from back surgery and resulting depression.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that his condition was so debilitating as to prevent him from filing the application, noting he was able to pursue a WSIB claim during the same period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin by an OPP officer during a traffic stop and vehicle safety inspection.

The officer removed the applicant's license plates after determining the vehicle was unsafe and stepped on them to flatten jagged edges.

The applicant claimed this was done to intimidate him based on his past interactions with police.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the officer's non-discriminatory explanations for his actions credible and the applicant's theory improbable.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race after his employment was terminated.

The respondent terminated the applicant after he was absent from work without leave, misled personnel, and was found by police with a smell of marijuana in his car.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to show any link between the termination of his employment and his race.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled three-day hearing because two of their witnesses would be on vacation outside the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that witness unavailability due to vacation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The respondents' alternative request to commence the hearing and schedule further dates later was also denied, with the Tribunal directing the parties to arrive prepared to proceed with their entire case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding her return to work and accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing appeals before the WSIB regarding the same underlying facts and seeking similar remedies.

Finding significant overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant refused to provide available dates for the summary hearing until the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce certain documents.

The Tribunal explained that document production would occur after the summary hearing if necessary, and directed the applicant to provide dates or face abandonment.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal he would no longer correspond with it.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her application 80 days after the decision was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit without explanation.

Furthermore, the applicant's new evidence did not allege Code violations and could have been raised earlier, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Dryden DMTS and Jodi Langlais.

The respondents and the applicant's union submitted that the corporate respondent is a telecommunications company and therefore falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not dispute these facts.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by the school board and a curriculum leader.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) to remove the curriculum leader as a personal respondent and to dismiss parts of the application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, noting the school board accepted vicarious liability for her actions.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations relating to events in 2004 and 2005 as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations spanning from September 2008 to May 2010 constituted a series of incidents and allowed them to proceed.

A cross-RFOP by the applicant seeking procedural sanctions against the respondent was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal when attempting to obtain service at the respondent bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banking is a federally regulated undertaking.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Megabus.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over a federally regulated business, and directed the applicant to file a complete application and submissions.

After granting an extension and referring the applicant to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the applicant failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add potential witnesses and alter his proposed financial remedy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the amendments unnecessary.

The Tribunal noted that witness information should be provided pursuant to Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and arguments regarding financial remedies can be made at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, and the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of seven outstanding grievances filed by the union on the applicant's behalf.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, finding that the issues raised in the application and the grievances overlapped significantly and that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant, a tenant of the institutional respondent, alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of sex after being sexually assaulted by the personal respondent's brother, a non-resident.

The applicant also alleged that the personal respondent verbally harassed her in reprisal for complaining to the police and the institutional respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the Code's protection against harassment in accommodation does not extend to non-residents, and the alleged reprisal was not related to enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to defer, finding that the grievance had not proceeded in a timely fashion and there was no immediate risk of concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the personal respondent.

The personal respondent had previously been convicted of sexually assaulting the applicant in criminal court.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to preclude the respondents from relitigating the criminal court's findings of fact and verdict.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that allowing relitigation would violate the principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice, and would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was pressured into withdrawing his grievances due to his mental disability.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was already dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and under section 34 for delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary teleconference hearing to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed on these grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation resulting in his eviction.

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be considered abandoned.

The applicant explained that he had not received notice due to a change of address following his eviction and a subsequent period of homelessness.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to update his contact information as required, he had not abandoned his application and rescheduling the hearing would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the summary hearing to be rescheduled.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, and sex.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that complaints about her supervision were motivated by her being a white female, and that the corporate respondent moved her to a different position instead of addressing her concerns.

The corporate respondent argued the move was due to complaints about her management style creating a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the events and the Code grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application.

The applicant, a 64-year-old occasional teacher, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her on the basis of age when she was unsuccessful in five separate job competitions for permanent contract teaching positions.

In each case, the successful candidate was significantly younger and had less teaching experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

However, the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions, demonstrating that the applicant was either outperformed in the interviews or received a poor reference.

The applications were dismissed.